Taueki v Police - [2012] NZHC 3538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-454-16 [2012] NZHC 3538

BETWEEN PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI Appellant

ANDPOLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 October 2012

Counsel: S J Price for Appellant
M J Ferrier for Respondent

Judgment: 19 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] This appeal concerns an argument.

[2] The appellant, Mr Taueki, arrived one Sunday morning at the Lake Horowhenua Domain. His purpose was to protest the conduct of a surf club paddling regatta on the lake. His principal objection was that the event needed permits from the Domain Board. These had not been obtained. The argument escalated. In the end Mr Taueki was arrested for disorderly behaviour. He was convicted, and now appeals.

Background

[3] Lake Horowhenua is a shallow lake lying on the edge of sand dunes between Levin and the sea. The local iwi are the Muaupoko. They still own the lake bed. They were defeated in heavy fighting with Ngati Toa in that locality nearly 200 years ago. Two island pas were destroyed. Many died. What happened is described in the
report of the Horowhenua Commission, in 1896:

TAUEKI v POLICE HC WN CRI 2012-454-16 [19 December 2012]

[The Horowhenua Block] was, prior to, and at the time of the arrival of NgātiToa and NgātiRaukawa Tribes from the north, inhabited by the Muaupoko Tribe. In the course of time the Muaupoko were almost exterminated by those tribes, and the remnant of the Muaupoko were driven either into the vastness of the hills, or to take refuge with the Whanganui or other tribes.1

This case shows the scars of that battle remain livid today.

[4] Mr Taueki is a member of Muaupoko. The evidence is that he is a descendent of Tauheke, paramount chief of that tribe, who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. As one of the owners of the lake bed, and a nearby resident, Mr Taueki takes responsibility as kaitiaki of the lake. Trustees representing the landowners appear also to have appointed him as some sort of warden. It is clear by reason of his ancestry in particular, he feels a deep spiritual connection to the lake and its hinterland. It is clear, too, that for some time he has been agitating publicly about contamination of the lake by nutrients and other run-off. It is something plainly he feels very deep concern about.

[5] The lake bed, along with some land adjacent, is owned by the Muaupoko iwi including Mr Taueki. As the Court of Appeal has noted recently, in dealing with another case concerning Mr Taueki,2 s 18(2) of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956 declared the bed of the lake, its islands and a strip of land one chain in width around the original margin of the lake to be “and to have always been owned by the Maori owners,” i.e. the Muaupoko iwi. These lands had since 1898
been vested in trustees appointed by the Maori Land Court in trust for the Maori owners.3 Some…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taueki v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 3538
Decision Date: 19 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Philip Dean Taueki, a member of the Muaupoko iwi, appealed his conviction for disorderly behaviour in a public place, contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. The incident occurred when Mr Taueki protested against a paddling regatta on Lake Horowhenua Domain, which he believed was being conducted unlawfully due to the lack of permits. Mr Taueki's protest escalated, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction. The appeal concerned three issues: (1) whether Mr Taueki's belief about the unlawfulness of the regatta was relevant; (2) if his driving could be considered part of the actus reus of disorderly behaviour; and (3) whether his behaviour was disorderly. The court found that while Mr Taueki's belief about the unlawfulness of the event was relevant, he was not prejudiced by the Judge's rulings on the admissibility of this evidence. The court also concluded that Mr Taueki's driving could form part of the actus reus of disorderly behaviour if it was part of a course of conduct that was disorderly. Finally, the court determined that Mr Taueki's first confrontation was not disorderly, but his second confrontation with Mr Murray was. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, and a reduced fine of $400 was substituted.

Orders